retro

name	retro
description	Turn a bad or long Pawrrtal work session into durable project learning. Use when the user says $retro, asks to learn from a session, says too much went wrong, or asks to create/update skills or rules from recent failures.

Retro

Use this when the user wants the project to learn from a messy session. The goal is not a report; the goal is to change the next agent's behavior.

Process

1. Extract incidents from evidence. Use the current thread, git diff, PR state, logs, and commands. Do not rely on vibes or blame.
   • If .agent/skills/retro/scripts/collect-codex-retro-context.py is missing, use the current conversation as primary evidence and run /root/.agent/skills/retro/scripts/collect-codex-retro-context.py when available.
2. Name each failure mode. Phrase it as an action that should happen next time, such as "prove live Telegram with real delivery before claiming it works."
3. Choose the durable artifact.
   • Repeated workflow mistake: create or update a skill.
   • Repo-wide rule: update AGENTS.md or a .claude/rules/** file.
   • Product/code task: create a bean with the beans CLI.
   • One-off fact that should be remembered across sessions: write a Codex memory note only when the user explicitly asked to remember it.
4. Prefer small skills over one giant policy. A skill should trigger for a specific situation and fit in one context read.
5. Add verification to every skill. The skill must say what evidence proves the agent followed it.
6. Reference project skills from AGENTS.md. Future agents should discover them without guessing names.
7. Validate metadata. Every skill description must include clear "Use when..." triggers and stay under 1024 characters.

Incident Patterns To Capture

Pattern	Durable Fix
Long-running goal drifts into a tiny PR	Add a scope-audit skill that maps requirements to commits, runtime work, PR diff, and missing items.
"Works" claimed from a simulation only	Add live-ops verification requiring real browser/channel/provider proof.
CI runners consume the wrong disk or wrong trust model	Add runner-ops instructions covering placement, labels, actor gates, and cleanup.
Generic core gets provider/channel/tool details	Add extension-boundary instructions and tests at the interface.
Secrets or credentials could leak in logs	Add redaction and "do not print" rules to the relevant operational skill.
The user asks "why" after a failure	Answer from current evidence first, then make the durable fix.

Output

When done, report:

• Skills/rules added or changed.
• Which incident each artifact prevents.
• Validation run.
• Anything intentionally left for a follow-up bean or PR.